This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-40
entitled 'K-12 Education: Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students
Who Change Schools Frequently' which was released on December 20, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
November 2010:
K-12 Education:
Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who Change Schools
Frequently:
GAO-11-40:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-40, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Educational achievement of students can be negatively affected by
their changing schools often. The recent economic downturn, with
foreclosures and homelessness, may be increasing student mobility.
To inform Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)
reauthorization, GAO was asked:
(1) What are the numbers and characteristics of students who change
schools, and what are the reasons students change schools?
(2) What is known about the effects of mobility on student outcomes,
including academic achievement, behavior, and other outcomes?
(3) What challenges does student mobility present for schools in
meeting the educational needs of students who change schools?
(4) What key federal programs are schools using to address the needs
of mobile students? GAO analyzed federal survey data, interviewed U.S.
Department of Education (Education) officials, conducted site visits
at eight schools in six school districts, and reviewed federal laws
and existing research.
What GAO Found:
While nearly all students change schools at some point before reaching
high school, some change schools with greater frequency. According to
Education’s national survey data, the students who change schools the
most frequently (four or more times) represented about 13 percent of
all kindergarten through eighth grade (K-8) students and they were
disproportionately poor, African American, and from families that did
not own their home. About 11.5 percent of schools also had high rates
of mobility—more than 10 percent of K-8 students left by the end of
the school year. These schools, in addition to serving a mobile
population, had larger percentages of students who were low-income,
received special education, and had limited English proficiency.
Research suggests that mobility is one of several interrelated
factors, such as socio-economic status and lack of parental education,
which have a negative effect on academic achievement, but research
about mobility’s effect on students’ social and emotional well-being
is limited and inconclusive. With respect to academic achievement,
students who change schools more frequently tend to have lower scores
on standardized reading and math tests and drop out of school at
higher rates than their less mobile peers.
Schools face a range of challenges in meeting the academic, social,
and emotional needs of students who change schools. Teachers we
interviewed said that students who change schools often face
challenges due to differences in what is taught and how it is taught.
Students may arrive without records or with incomplete records, making
it difficult for teachers to make placement decisions and identify
special education needs. Also, teachers and principals told us that
schools face challenges in supporting the needs of these students’
families, the circumstances of which often underlie frequent school
changes. Moreover, these schools face the dual challenge of educating
a mobile student population, as well as a general student population,
that is often largely low-income and disadvantaged.
Schools use a range of federal programs already in place and targeted
to at-risk students to meet the needs of students who change schools
frequently. Teachers and principals told us that mobile students are
often eligible for and benefit from federal programs for low-income,
disadvantaged students, such as Title 1, Part A of ESEA which funds
tutoring and after-school instruction. In addition, school officials
we interviewed said they rely on the McKinney-Vento Education for
Homeless Children and Youth Program, which provides such things as
clothing and school supplies to homeless students and requires schools
to provide transportation for homeless students who lack permanent
residence so they can avoid changing schools. GAO did not evaluate the
effectiveness of these programs in meeting the needs of mobile
students.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is not making recommendations in this report. Education had no
comments on this report.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-40] or key
components. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-
7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Characteristics of More Mobile and Less Mobile Students and Their
Schools Differ:
Research Suggests Student Mobility Can Have a Negative Effect on
Academic Achievement, but Its Effect on Social Adjustment is Unclear:
Schools with High Student Mobility Face Challenges in Meeting the
Academic and Emotional Needs of All Students:
Schools Use a Range of Federal Programs Already in Place to Meet the
Needs of Mobile Students:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Data on Characteristics of Mobile Student Populations:
Appendix III: Data on Characteristics of Schools Regarding Mobile
Student Populations:
Appendix IV: Literature Review of Published Research on Student
Mobility:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: School-based Federal Programs That Serve Disadvantaged and
Other Special Needs Students, Including Mobile Students:
Table 2: Number of Times Students Changed Schools by Eighth Grade:
Table 3: Percent of Students from Families with Incomes Below the
Poverty Level:
Table 4: Percent of Students from Families Receiving TANF:
Table 5: Percent of Students Receiving Free or Reduced-Price Lunch:
Table 6: Percent of Students From Families Receiving Food Stamps:
Table 7: Percent of Students With No Father in the Household:
Table 8: Percent of Students of Various Races:
Table 9: Percent of Students from Families Who Do Not Own Their Home:
Table 10: Mobility by Geographic Region of Schools:
Table 11: Mobility by Metro-Centric Type of Locale:
Table 12: Mobility by Receipt of Title I Funding:
Table 13: Mobility by Percent of Students Receiving Targeted Title I
Services:
Table 14: Mobility by Students Eligible for NSLP:
Table 15: Mobility by How Schools Administer the NSLP:
Table 16: Mobility by School Participation in the NSLP:
Table 17: Mobility by Special Education Students:
Table 18: Mobility by Students Who are Limited English Proficient:
Table 19: Mobility by Percent of Students Absent on an Average Day:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Times Students Changed Schools Between
Kindergarten and Eighth Grades:
Figure 2: Comparison Across Income Measures for Less Mobile and More
Mobile Students:
Figure 3: Comparison Across Race for Less Mobile and More Mobile
Students:
Figure 4: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates
Receiving School-wide Title I Funding:
Figure 5: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates That
Participate in NSLP:
Figure 6: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates
Regarding Student Eligibility for NSLP:
Figure 7: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates
Regarding Special Education Students:
Figure 8: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates
Regarding Students Who Have Limited English Proficiency:
Abbreviations:
ECLS-K: Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Class of 1998-
1999:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
NAEP: National Assessment of Educational Progress:
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics:
NSLP: National School Lunch Program:
NCLB: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 18, 2010:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Children and Families:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
Although the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA) was enacted more than 40 years ago to help improve the
educational outcomes of our nation's poor children, the achievement
gap continues to persist and grow between them and their more affluent
peers. Research suggests that poor students change schools more
frequently than other students and that these school changes can
disrupt their education. Moreover, the recent economic downturn, which
resulted in job loss, foreclosures, and homelessness for many
Americans, may be increasing the numbers and frequency of students
changing schools as their families relocate in search of employment
and affordable housing.
In preparation for the reauthorization of ESEA, the Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the
Chairman of its Subcommittee on Children and Families asked GAO to
undertake a study of the scope of student mobility in the United
States today and examine its effect on students and schools.
Specifically, we were asked to address the following questions: (1)
What are the numbers and characteristics of students who change
schools, and what are the reasons students change schools? (2) What is
known about the effects of mobility on student outcomes, including
academic achievement, behavior, and other outcomes? (3) What
challenges does student mobility present for schools in meeting the
educational needs of students who change schools? (4) What key federal
programs are schools using to address the needs of mobile students?
To answer these questions, we analyzed two nationally representative
datasets from the Department of Education (Education): one, which
followed a cohort of students from 1998 to 2007, contained information
on the numbers and characteristics of mobile students and the other
contained information on the schools students attended in 2007.
[Footnote 1] Neither of these datasets allowed us to assess effects of
the economic downturn on student mobility, which occurred post 2007.
To collect additional information about the mobile student population
and reasons for their mobility, including any potential effects of the
recent economic downturn, we interviewed school officials and federal
and state education officials. We determined that Education's data
were sufficiently reliable and valid for the purposes of our review.
We reviewed external studies that measured the effects of student
mobility on both educational and noneducational student outcomes. We
selected studies that were published during or after 1984 and
contained original data analysis or meta-analysis. We conducted site
visits to a nonprobability sample of eight schools across six school
districts in three states (California, Michigan, and Texas) where we
interviewed school officials and parents about the challenges of
student mobility and how schools address those challenges. We selected
states that provided geographic coverage and that had high percentages
of economically disadvantaged students and/or high rates of
foreclosures to provide insight on how the economic downturn might be
affecting students and schools in high poverty areas. We selected
schools with high percentages of mobile students and that differed by
school type (public and charter), grade level (elementary, middle, and
high school), and location (urban, suburban, and rural). We
interviewed federal, state, and school officials about federal
programs that serve low-income, disadvantaged, and special needs
students, including those who change schools, and we reviewed relevant
federal laws, regulations, and agency documents. In addition, we
interviewed state education officials and local homeless education
liaisons about federal efforts to assist mobile students from homeless
families[Footnote 2]. (See appendix I for a detailed description of
this study's scope and methodology.)
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through November
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Nearly all students change school at some point during their school
years, most typically when they are promoted to a higher grade at a
different school. Specifically, students may change schools as they
are promoted from elementary to middle school and again from middle to
high school. In addition, students may also change schools when their
families move to a new home or to relocate closer to jobs.
In 1994, we issued a report that highlighted concerns about the
education of elementary school students who changed schools more
frequently than the norm.[Footnote 3] This report found that one in
six third graders changed schools frequently, attending at least three
different schools since the beginning of first grade. Students who
changed schools frequently were often from low-income families, the
inner city, migrant families, or had limited English proficiency.
These highly mobile students had low math and reading scores and were
more likely to repeat a grade. We recommended that Education ensure
low-income students have access to ESEA's Title I services,[Footnote
4] which they have taken steps to do so.
Since we issued our 1994 report, policymakers have continued to focus
attention on students' educational achievement. Specifically, the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), which reauthorized ESEA,
established a deadline of 2014 for all students to reach proficiency
in reading, math, and science. Under NCLBA, districts and schools must
demonstrate adequate yearly progress toward meeting state standards
for all students and every key subgroup of students, including low-
income students, minority students, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency.
Characteristics of More Mobile and Less Mobile Students and Their
Schools Differ:
While nearly all students change schools at some point before reaching
high school, some students change schools with greater frequency (see
figure 1). According to Education data, which followed a cohort of
kindergarteners from 1998 to 2007, the majority of students--about 70
percent--changed schools two times or less and about 18 percent
changed three times before reaching high school.[Footnote 5] Some of
these school changes could occur as a result of students being
promoted to a higher grade in a different school or parents moving to
a new home or relocating closer to their jobs.
However, for the students who changed schools four or more times
(about 13 percent), our analysis of Education's data revealed
statistically significant differences between them and students who
had changed two times or less, not only in the frequency of their
changes but along several important dimensions. We compared students
who changed schools two or fewer times (referred to in this report as
"less mobile") to students who changed schools four or more times
(referred to as "more mobile"). We selected this comparison because
the differences were most pronounced and because the two groups
combined represent a significant fraction (about 82 percent) of the
population of the students in the cohort. We also found statistically
significant differences between students who changed schools two or
fewer times and students who changed schools three or more times, but
these differences were less pronounced. See appendix II for
Education's Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Class of
1998-1999 (ECLS-K) data on the mobile student population.
Figure 1: Number of Times Students Changed Schools Between
Kindergarten and Eighth Grades:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Number of school changes: 0;
Percentage of students: 5%.
Number of school changes: 1;
Percentage of students: 31%.
Number of school changes: 2;
Percentage of students: 34%.
Number of school changes: 3;
Percentage of students: 18%;
Number of school changes: 4 or more;
Percentage of students: 13%.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Students who changed schools four or more times were
disproportionately poor, African American, and from families that did
not own their home or have a father present in the household. These
more mobile students--compared to those who changed schools two times
or less--had a significantly larger percentage of students with family
incomes below the poverty threshold, according to Education's survey
data.[Footnote 6] Furthermore, a significantly larger percentage of
the more mobile students, compared to less mobile students, received
benefits under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.[Footnote 7] As shown in
figure 2, about 26 percent of students who changed schools four or
more times had family incomes below the poverty threshold, compared to
about 17 percent of the students who changed schools two times or
less. Moreover, significantly smaller percentages of the more mobile
students had a father present in the household, when compared to their
less mobile peers who changed schools two times or less.
Figure 2: Comparison Across Income Measures for Less Mobile and More
Mobile Students:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Income measures: Free/reduced lunch;
0-2 school changes: 39.5%;
4 or more school changes: 54%.
Income measures: Below poverty threshold;
0-2 school changes: 18.5%;
4 or more school changes: 30.1%.
Income measures: Food stamps;
0-2 school changes: 10.9%;
4 or more school changes: 25.1%.
Income measures: TANF;
0-2 school changes: 3.2%;
4 or more school changes: 8.9%.
Income measures: No father in household;
0-2 school changes: 21.4%;
4 or more school changes: 30.5%.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Notes: Estimates in this figure compare the percentage of all students
who changed schools two times or less that had these characteristics
to the percentage of all students who changed schools four or more
times who also had these characteristics. For example, as depicted in
the graph, 40 percent of all students who changed two times or less
and 54 percent of all students who changed four or more times received
free or reduced price lunch.
Except where otherwise noted, all results for all figures presenting
student data were statistically significant at the 95 percent
confidence level.
[End of figure]
African-American students comprised a disproportionately larger
percentage of the students who changed schools four or more times when
compared to African-American students, as well as all other racial
ethnic groups, who changed schools two times or less, as shown in
figure 3.[Footnote 8] African-American students represented about 15
percent of students in kindergarten through eighth grade who changed
schools two times or less; however, they represented about 23 percent
of students who changed schools four or more times. In contrast, white
students, who represented about 60 percent of all students in the same
grade range who changed schools two times or less, accounted for about
51 percent of students who changed schools four times or more.
Figure 3: Comparison Across Race for Less Mobile and More Mobile
Students:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Percentage of less mobile students (0-2 school changes):
White: 59.6%;
Hispanic: 18.2%;
African-American: 15.3%;
Other: 7.0%.
Percentage of more mobile students (4 or more school changes):
White: 50.9%;
Hispanic: 17.6%;
African-American: 23.4%;
Other: 8.1%.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
[End of figure]
Finally, a significantly larger percentage of students who changed
schools four or more times came from families that did not own their
home. Students from families that did not own their own home
represented about 39 percent of students who changed schools four or
more times compared to about 20 percent for those who changed schools
two or fewer times--a difference of about 100 percent. According to
principals and teachers we interviewed, the more mobile students'
families may rent, live with relatives, or move back and forth between
relatives and friends. Further, some students may be homeless;
however, teachers and other school officials we interviewed said that,
in some cases, it may be difficult to know whether a student is
homeless because families may not disclose that they are homeless or
may not consider their particular living arrangements as being
homeless, for example, staying with relatives or doubling up--that is,
living with another family or families in a residence designed for a
single family.[Footnote 9] See appendix II for additional information
about the mobile student population.
The schools with the highest rates of student mobility also showed
differences across several characteristics. According to Education's
data, about 11.5 percent of schools had the highest rates of student
mobility--those where more than 10 percent of their eighth grade
students started the year at the school but left by the end of the
school year.[Footnote 10] These schools had larger percentages of at-
risk eighth grade students compared to schools where less than 10
percent of the students changed schools. According to Education's
data, these schools had larger percentages of eighth grade students
eligible for Title I assistance, the federal government's largest
program for low-income school age children. For example, about 62
percent of the schools with high mobility rates received Title I
funding, compared to about 46 percent of the schools where students'
mobility rates were lower. Moreover, the schools with high mobility
rates were more often eligible for Title I "school-wide" programs, a
designation that allows schools with a population of at least 40
percent low-income students, to offer services to every student in the
school. As shown in figure 4, about 45 percent of the schools with
high mobility rates were classified as school-wide, compared to about
21 percent of the schools that had lower rates of student mobility.
Figure 4: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates
Receiving School-wide Title I Funding:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Percentage of schools with low mobility:
Do not receive Title I funding: 53.63%;
Receive Title I funding - entire school: 21.33%;
Receive Title I funding - individual students: 25.04%.
Percentage of schools with high mobility:
Do not receive Title I funding: 37.99%;
Receive Title I funding - entire school: 45.12%;
Receive Title I funding - individual students: 16.89%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
Note: Except otherwise noted, all results for all figures presenting
school data were statistically significant at the 95 percent
confidence level.
[End of figure]
Moreover, the schools with high mobility rates were more likely to
participate in NSLP. Specifically, as shown in figure 5, about 91
percent of the schools with high mobility rates participated in the
school lunch program, compared to about 68 percent of the schools with
lower rates of student mobility.
Figure 5: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates That
Participate in NSLP:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Percentage of schools with low mobility:
School participates: 67.66%;
School does not participate: 32.34%.
Percentage of schools with high mobility:
School participates: 91.42%;
School does not participate: 8.58%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[End of figure]
In addition, for about 10 percent of the schools with high mobility
rates, all of the students in these schools were eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch, compared to about 5 percent of the schools with
lower rates of student mobility (see figure 6).
Figure 6: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates
Regarding Student Eligibility for NSLP:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Percentage of schools with low mobility:
Individual students eligible: 95.15%;
All students eligible: 4.85%.
Percentage of schools with high mobility:
Individual students eligible: 89.95%;
All students eligible: 10.05%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[End of figure]
The schools with high mobility rates also had larger percentages of
eighth grade students receiving special education services, with
limited English proficiency, and having higher rates of absenteeism.
Specifically, as shown in figure 7, of the schools that had 11-25
percent of their eighth grade students receiving special education
services, about 50 percent had high mobility rates compared to about
32 percent that had lower rates of mobility.
Figure 7: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates
Regarding Special Education Students:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percent of special education students: 0 to 5%;
Low mobility: 43.39%;
High mobility: 9.78%.
Percent of special education students: 6 to 10%;
Low mobility: 20.34%;
High mobility: 23.98%.
Percent of special education students: 11 to 25%;
Low mobility: 31.54%;
High mobility: 49.73%.
Percent of special education students: 26 to 50%;
Low mobility: 3.37%;
High mobility: 7.96%.
Percent of special education students: 51 to 100%;
Low mobility: 1.36%;
High mobility: 8.55%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[End of figure]
Schools with high mobility rates also had larger percentages of their
eighth grade students who had limited English proficiency. For
example, as shown in figure 8, of the schools that had 26-50 percent
of students with limited English proficiency, about 11 percent had
high mobility rates compared to about 2 percent that had lower rates
of mobility.
Figure 8: Comparison of Schools with Low and High Mobility Rates
Regarding Students Who Have Limited English Proficiency:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 0;
Low mobility: 53.19%;
High mobility: 31.43%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 1 to 5%;
Low mobility: 32.71%;
High mobility: 28.28%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 6 to 10%;
Low mobility: 5.37%;
High mobility: 10.24%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 11 to 25%;
Low mobility: 5.04%;
High mobility: 14.09%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 26 to 50%;
Low mobility: 2.3%;
High mobility: 10.96%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 51 to 75%;
Low mobility: 0.77%;
High mobility: 2.61%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 76 to 100%;
Low mobility: 0.62%;
High mobility: 2.4%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[End of figure]
Finally, the schools with high mobility rates had larger percentages
of students absent. About 30 percent of the schools with high mobility
rates had 6-10 percent of students absent on an average day, compared
to about 11 percent of the schools with lower rates of mobility. See
appendix III for additional information comparing schools with high
rates of mobility to schools with less mobility.
Teachers, principals, and parents told us that financial difficulties
and family instability often underlie why students change schools
frequently, but some cited other reasons as well, such as parents'
desire to send their children to a better-performing or safer school.
Some school officials and parents in all three states we visited
(California, Michigan, and Texas) said that economic difficulties,
including job loss, played a role in student mobility. For example,
the principal of one Detroit-area school serving a large low-income
population said that families lost their jobs when the automobile
industry declined and moved out of the area in search of jobs. Several
principals and teachers also cited foreclosures on homes and the
inability of some families to pay the rent as reasons that students
changed schools. For example, officials at a rural California high
school said that relatively inexpensive real estate attracted many
homeowners who later lost their homes. One teacher in California told
us that some families who are unable to pay the rent and are evicted
will move from one apartment complex to another complex offering a
free month's rent. In addition, school officials in all three states
we visited said that they saw more families "doubled-up"--sharing a
single-family residence with one or more other families. School
officials said all of these situations have resulted in students
changing schools.
Family instability also plays a role in mobility, according to parents
and school officials we interviewed. School officials in all three
states we visited cited divorce as a reason for mobility. For example,
school officials in Michigan told us that one student had changed
schools four times during one school year when his parents' custody
arrangement changed. In an urban school in Texas and a rural school in
California, teachers and principals also said that school changes can
result when students are passed around among relatives or friends when
there is conflict in the student's family. Officials in California and
Michigan told us that mobility also results when social services
personnel need to remove students from their homes and that foster
children are highly mobile, too. In addition to family issues, school
officials and parents in all three states said that, in some cases,
mobility results from family choice related to safety concerns or the
desire to provide different educational options for their children.
For example, one parent in Texas said she changed residences and her
child's school after two home break-ins and in California, a principal
said that some families come to his school district to escape gang
activity and violence.
Research Suggests Student Mobility Can Have a Negative Effect on
Academic Achievement, but Its Effect on Social Adjustment is Unclear:
A body of research suggests that student mobility has a negative
effect on students' academic achievement, but research on its effect
on their social and emotional well-being is inconclusive. With respect
to academic outcomes, while research suggests that the academic
achievement of students is affected by a set of interrelated factors
that includes socio-economic status and parental education, there is
evidence that mobility has an effect on achievement apart from these
other factors.[Footnote 11] Specifically, the body of research
suggests that students who changed schools more frequently tended to
have lower scores on standardized reading and math tests and to drop
out of school at higher rates than their less mobile peers.[Footnote
12] For example, a national study that tracked high school age
students found that changing high schools was associated with lower
performance on math and reading tests. Another study using the same
national, longitudinal dataset found that students who changed schools
two or more times from 8th to 12th grade were twice as likely to drop
out of high school, or not obtain a General Equivalency Diploma,
compared to students who did not change schools. In addition, a meta-
analysis found that student mobility was associated with lower
achievement and higher rates of high school dropout.[Footnote 13]
Further, some studies found that the effect of mobility on achievement
varied depending on other factors, such as the student's race/
ethnicity, special needs, grade level, frequency of school change, and
characteristics of the school change--whether it was between school
districts or within a district, or whether it was to an urban or
suburban/rural district.[Footnote 14] For example, one study found
that school changes from one school district to another tended to
result in long-term changes in academic performance and that this long-
term change tended to be positive for students who moved to schools in
nonurban districts[Footnote 15] but negative for those who moved to
urban areas. In addition, this study found that school changes within
the same school district were not associated with any long-term
changes in performance, but were associated with short-run negative
effects on performance that were generally greater for African-
American, Hispanic, and poor students.
The small body of research that exists about the effect of mobility on
students' social and emotional well-being is limited and inconclusive.
These studies generally used methods that do not support strong
conclusions about specific relationships between mobility and social
and behavioral outcomes. One important limitation is that these
studies typically did not account for pre-existing differences between
more mobile and less mobile students. For example, we were unable to
report the results of two national longitudinal studies that we
reviewed because the studies used narrow, limited measures of student
behavior and other social outcomes, and the studies did not control
for prior student behavior and social conditions. A complete list of
the studies we reviewed is included in appendix IV.
Schools with High Student Mobility Face Challenges in Meeting the
Academic and Emotional Needs of All Students:
Officials we interviewed in schools with high rates of student
mobility said they often face the dual challenge of meeting the needs
of their students who change schools at high rates and the needs of
the entire student body, which is comprised largely of low-income,
disadvantaged students. A number of teachers and principals told us
that when new students arrive, it can sometimes affect the pace of
instruction for the entire classroom, as teachers attend to the needs
of a new student. Moreover, some teachers and principals said that for
a new student, there may be differences in what and how instruction
has been delivered to them from school to school, and this can make it
difficult for teachers to assess where students are academically when
they arrive and make decisions about proper placement. Further,
teachers in two schools said that the order in which course material
is taught varies from school to school, presenting challenges for
teachers in the classrooms. For example, one teacher told about a
student who moved to Texas from California and was placed in an
algebra class based on her academic record, but was later moved to a
more appropriate class after the teachers saw her struggling to keep
up with her peers. Also, a teacher from a Texas middle school, whose
district teaches pre-algebra reasoning skills beginning in
kindergarten, said that students from other states are taught these
skills in later grades.
A number of teachers and principals also told us that mobile students'
records are often not transferred to the new school in a timely way or
at all, and, as a result, this can make it difficult for school
officials to determine class placement, credit transfer, and the need
for special services, such as services related to special education
and language proficiency. Several teachers said that when students
arrive without records, the school must observe and document whether
students need special education services--a process that is very
comprehensive and can take several weeks or months. In an effort to
help schools make more informed decisions about class placement and
identification of students with special needs, Texas has developed a
system to electronically transfer student records between schools in
the state. This system allows schools to share information on what
classes students took at the previous school, their grades and
standardized test scores, reasons for withdrawal, annual absences,
immunization records, and special circumstances, such as English
proficiency, migrant status, homeless status, participation in gifted
programs or special education, whether the student has an
Individualized Education Program,[Footnote 16] and eligibility for
NSLP.
Schools also face the challenge of helping mobile students adjust
socially and emotionally to the new school environment. While some
students adjust well to their new school, some do not. A few teachers,
principals, and other school officials said that some mobile students
may feel like they do not belong, fail to make new friends, exhibit
poor attendance, and, in some cases, drop out. Others who have
difficulty fitting in socially may try to gain attention by exhibiting
certain behavior, such as disrupting other students in the class.
Also, some guidance counselors and teachers told us some mobile
students often act detached, especially when they have changed schools
repeatedly and anticipate changing again. In some of the schools we
visited, new students were paired with a "buddy" who walks them to
class, sits with them at lunch, and helps them learn classroom
routines and procedures. Some schools also provided orientation tours
of the school for new students and parents and arranged for new
students to meet with the guidance counselor to help with the
transition. For example, in a suburban/rural public school district in
Michigan we visited, the principal and teachers at the elementary
school meet with new students and their parents on the first day of
the school year; students officially start school the next day. This
gives advance notice to teachers about incoming students and allows
them time to prepare. In addition, the junior high school in this
district has a welcoming committee to introduce new students and
parents to the school faculty and provide a tour of the school.
Several school officials told us that the needs of mobile and
nonmobile students can extend beyond the classroom and often their
families are in need of services too. To help address the family
circumstances that contribute to mobility, two school districts we
visited use school-based family resource centers that rely on
partnerships between the school, community, church, and city agencies
to arrange for "wraparound" services for the entire family--such as
services related to housing, employment and finances, health care,
education for parents and children, and social support networks. In
all three states we visited, some schools have specific school-based
or community outreach to parents that can benefit both mobile and
nonmobile families, such as parenting classes on a range of topics,
like budgeting and accessing housing. Also, homeless students, who are
often mobile, may lack basic supplies, for example, backpacks, school
supplies, and school uniforms, and they may miss school frequently
because of issues such as lack of transportation or domestic violence.
In addition, some school officials told us they help arrange for
services for homeless mobile students and their families, such as
coordinating with local homeless shelters and arranging to provide
homeless mobile students with food on the weekends when they do not
have access to free breakfast and lunch at school.
Schools Use a Range of Federal Programs Already in Place to Meet the
Needs of Mobile Students:
Because the highly mobile schools we visited also had large
percentages of low-income, disadvantaged students and special
populations already targeted by federal programs, the schools met the
needs of mobile students using funding from programs already in place.
For example, during our site visits, a number of school officials and
state and local educational agency officials told us they relied on
funds from Title I, Part A of ESEA, a federal program targeted to
disadvantaged students, including those who are from low-income
families, have limited English proficiency, are from migrant families,
have disabilities, or are neglected or delinquent. Services available
under Title I, Part A are intended to ensure that disadvantaged
children have a fair and equal opportunity to obtain a high-quality
education and to reach proficiency on assessments based on the state's
academic standards.[Footnote 17] Some school officials and state and
local educational agency officials told us they used funds from Title
I, Part A to pay for tutoring, after-school instruction, teachers'
salaries, technology upgrades, school field trips, and staff
development and training on addressing diverse needs of mobile and
nonmobile students. One school we visited used funding provided by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)[Footnote
18] for ESEA Title I, Part A to, among other things, hire additional
teachers to provide small-group instruction to all students who are
behind academically, including mobile students. See table 1 for
information about school-based federal programs for disadvantaged and
special needs students.
Table 1: School-based Federal Programs That Serve Disadvantaged and
Other Special Needs Students, Including Mobile Students:
Federal agency implementing program: Department of Education;
Name of law or program: Title I, Part A of ESEA;
Purpose of program: To ensure that disadvantaged children have a fair
and equal opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and to reach
proficiency on assessments based on state academic standards;
Population served by program: Disadvantaged students, including
children who are low-income, limited English proficient, migratory,
children with disabilities, or neglected or delinquent;
Funding for program:
* Formula-based distribution;
* Regular: $14.5 billion (fiscal year 2009);
* Recovery Act: $10 billion (fiscal year 2009).
Federal agency implementing program: Department of Education;
Name of law or program: McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children
and Youth Program;
Purpose of program: To ensure that homeless students have equal access
to free, appropriate public education as other children and youth;
Population served by program: Homeless children and youth;
Funding for program:
* Formula-based distribution;
funds disseminated through a state-run grant process;
* Regular: $65.4 million (fiscal year 2009);
* Recovery Act: $70 million (fiscal year 2009).
Federal agency implementing program: Department of Education;
Name of law or program: Migrant Education Program;
Purpose of program: To ensure that migrant children fully benefit from
the same free public education provided to other children;
Population served by program: Migrant students in the agricultural and
fishing sectors;
Funding for program:
* Formula-based distribution based on each state's count of eligible
migratory children and per-pupil expenditure;
* Regular: $394.8 million (fiscal year 2009).
Federal agency implementing program: Department of Education;
Name of law or program: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;
Purpose of program: To provide early intervention, special education,
and related services to children and youths with disabilities;
Population served by program: Students with disabilities;
Funding for program:
* Formula-based grants to states based on the number of students
receiving special education services;
* Regular: $23.8 billion (fiscal year 2010);
* Recovery Act: $11.3 billion in grants to states (fiscal year 2009).
Federal agency implementing program: Department of Agriculture;
Name of law or program: School Breakfast Program (SBP) and NSLP;
Purpose of program: To provide nutritionally-balanced free or reduced
price breakfasts and lunches to low-income students;
Population served by program: Low-income students;
Funding for program:
* Cash reimbursements and direct food donations;
* Regular: $9 billion (NSLP) and $2.6 billion (SBP) (fiscal year 2009);
* Recovery Act: $100 million (fiscal year 2009).
Federal agency implementing program: Department of Health and Human
Services;
Name of law or program: Head Start;
Purpose of program: To promote school readiness by enhancing the
social and cognitive development of children through the provision of
educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to
economically disadvantaged children and families;
Population served by program: Low-income children age 0-5;
Funding for program:
* Grants to local public and private organizations;
* Regular: $5 billion (fiscal year 2009);
* Recovery Act: $2.1 billion (fiscal year 2009).
Sources: GAO analysis of information from the Departments of
Education, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services.
Note: GAO did not independently verify the information in this table.
[End of table]
School officials in one district we visited told us that some of their
mobile students are eligible for services under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, a program that provides early intervention
and special education services for children and youths with
disabilities.[Footnote 19] The schools we visited also received
funding through the Department of Agriculture's school nutrition
programs,[Footnote 20] which provide free and reduced-price school
meals for low-income, disadvantaged students. School officials in some
locations said that this program allows them to provide school meals
to a large percentage of their student body, including both mobile and
nonmobile students.
In addition, some schools we visited used the McKinney-Vento Education
for Homeless Children and Youth Program (McKinney-Vento Program),
[Footnote 21] which is designed to meet the educational needs of
homeless students. Some school officials told us that homeless
students are often mobile. Specifically, the McKinney-Vento Program
requires all school districts to put in place homeless education
liaisons. Some homeless education liaisons and other school officials
we interviewed said they used funds from the McKinney-Vento Program to
provide homeless students with food, clothing, school uniforms,
backpacks of toiletries and school supplies, tutoring at homeless
shelters, academic enrichment services, and summer programs. The
McKinney-Vento Program also requires all school districts to provide
transportation to those homeless students who choose to remain in
their school of origin,[Footnote 22] however funding for
transportation is provided by the school district. Some schools we
visited used their own school funds to pay for transportation, such as
bus passes and gas cards, as needed, for homeless students to get to
school. Schools we visited also used McKinney-Vento Program funds for
various other purposes, including one school that used the funds to
hire staff to identify homeless students and two other schools that
used the funds to provide outreach to parents. Across all three states
we visited, homeless education liaisons help provide a stable
environment for homeless students to learn by arranging for services
for their families, such as referrals to soup kitchens, health
services including free dental clinics, free school supplies, and
domestic violence groups.
According to state education agency officials we interviewed, schools
in their states relied on the Migrant Education Program, which
supports the educational needs of a specific population of mobile
students--students who are migrant workers or children of migrant
parents.[Footnote 23] The Migrant Education Program (1) provides
students with services, such as academic (tutoring and summer school)
and health services; (2) allows school districts to share migrant
student information electronically across state boundaries; (3)
encourages states to collaborate in administering state assessments
and sharing lesson plans; and (4) provides funding for "portable"
education services, such as instructional booklets and CD-ROM learning
modules that help migrant students earn school credits as they move
from school to school or undergo extended absences. States use the
Migrant Student Information Exchange--a Web-based database--to
collect, maintain, and share student record information to facilitate
school enrollment, grade and course placement, and accrual of
secondary school course credits.[Footnote 24] We did not evaluate the
effectiveness of these federal programs in meeting the needs of mobile
students.
We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Education
for review and comment. Education did not have any comments on the
report.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to relevant congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and
other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available
at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This appendix discusses in more detail our methodology for our study
examining the scope and implications of student mobility on students
and schools. Our study was framed around four questions: (1) What are
the numbers and characteristics of students who change schools, and
what are the reasons students change schools? (2) What is known about
the effects of mobility on student outcomes including academic
achievement, behavior, and other outcomes? (3) What challenges does
student mobility present for schools in meeting the educational needs
of students who change schools? (4) What key federal programs are
schools using to address the needs of mobile students?
Analysis of Federal Datasets:
To obtain information on the number and characteristics of mobile
students and schools they attend, we analyzed two nationally
representative datasets that are administered by the Department of
Education's (Education) National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES)--the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of
1998-1999 (ECLS-K) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). We selected these datasets in consultation with our
methodologists and Education officials.
For both datasets, we assessed the quality, reliability, and usability
of the data for reporting descriptive statistics on the
characteristics of students and the schools they attend. For our data
reliability assessment, we reviewed agency documents about the
datasets' variable definitions, survey and sampling methods, and data
collection and analysis efforts. We also conducted electronic tests of
the files and interviewed Education officials about the steps they
took to ensure data reliability. We determined that the Education data
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. The surveys
used weighted probability sampling of students (ECLS-K) and schools
(NAEP). We followed recommended statistical techniques to estimate
standard errors of estimates from the ECLS-K and NAEP data.
The ECLS-K's measure of individual-level student mobility is limited
in that its measure of school changes includes the number of
promotional school changes--for example, the typical school change
from an elementary school to a middle school--as well as the
nonpromotional school changes.
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999:
The ECLS-K is a longitudinal survey of students from kindergarten
through eighth grade. The survey population is a nationally
representative cohort of 21,260 students who began kindergarten in
1998. The survey collects data from students, parents, teachers, and
school officials from 1998 to 2007. In our analysis of ECLS-K data, we
focused on the eighth grade survey round, to ensure that we captured
the most complete data on school changes.
During each spring survey round from first through eighth grade,
parents were asked how many times their child changed schools since
the last survey period. We used the responses from those questions, as
well as school identification information, to estimate the number of
school changes for each student. We examined the following student
characteristics available in the ECLS-K data: (1) race; (2) measures
of family income, including poverty threshold, receipt of free or
reduced-price lunch, food stamps, or assistance from the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; (3) whether a father was
present in the household; and (4) whether the family owned their home.
We compared students who changed schools two or fewer times (referred
to as "less mobile") to those who changed schools four or more times
(referred to as "more mobile"). We chose those groups for comparison
because they provide a clear separation between the more mobile and
less mobile groups and also because the two groups combined represent
a significant fraction--about 82 percent--of the population of the
students in the cohort. Students who changed schools four or more
times would generally have experienced at least three nonpromotional
school moves. We also considered defining high mobility students as
those who changed five or more times. However, such students only made
up about 5 percent of the population followed by the ECLS-K. Because
table cell sample sizes were often very small using the five change
cut-off, resulting in wide confidence intervals, we decided against
the use of this definition.
In addition to the analyses we presented in the main body of this
report, we compared students who changed schools two or fewer times to
those who changed schools three or more times. We found statistically
significant differences among some of the relationships we explored,
but as expected, the differences were more pronounced when the highly
mobile population was defined as students who changed four or more
times. See appendix II for ECLS-K data on the mobile student
population.
National Assessment of Educational Progress:
The NAEP--the results of which are issued as the Nation's Report Card--
provides nationally representative results on school characteristics
based on samples of 4th, 8th, and 12th grade students[Footnote 25].
Similar to our analysis of the ECLS-K, our analysis of NAEP focused on
the eighth grade year. We used the results from survey questions
related to school environment and characteristics to describe the
characteristics of schools and their student mobility rates. To
determine schools' student mobility rates, we used responses from the
following question administered in the 2007 survey: "About what
percentage of students who are enrolled at the beginning of the school
year is still enrolled at the end of the school year[Footnote 26]?"
Further, using the NAEP data, we explored relationships between
schools' mobility rates and the following school characteristics: (1)
geographic location; (2) measures of low-income students, such as
receipt of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965's (ESEA)
Title I funding[Footnote 27] and participation in the National School
Lunch Program (NSLP);[Footnote 28] (3) students in special education;
(4) students with limited English proficiency; and (5) students absent
on an average day.
For our comparison of schools with "low" student mobility rates and
schools with "high" student mobility rates, we sorted the NAEP data
into three pairings to determine which pairing provided a clear
separation between low mobility and high mobility schools. When we
compared schools that had 5 percent or fewer of their students no
longer enrolled at the end of the school year (low mobility) with
schools that had more than 5 percent of their students no longer
enrolled at the end of the year (high mobility), we found few
statistically significant differences. When we compared schools that
had 10 percent or fewer of their students no longer enrolled at the
end of the school year (low mobility) with schools that had more than
10 percent of their students no longer enrolled at the end of the year
(high mobility), we found several statistical differences. When we
compared schools that had 20 percent or fewer of their students no
longer enrolled at the end of the school year (low mobility) with
schools that had more than 20 percent of their students no longer
enrolled at the end of the year (high mobility), cell sample sizes
were too small to make meaningful comparisons. We thus selected the 10
percent pairing because it provides a clear separation between the low
mobility and high mobility schools and the sample sizes were
sufficient to make meaningful comparisons. See appendix III for NAEP
data on schools.
Review of External Research Studies:
We reviewed existing studies to determine what research says about the
effects of mobility on student outcomes, including academic and
nonacademic outcomes, such as behavior. To identify existing studies,
we searched several electronic databases using the keywords "student
mobility," "school mobility," and "transience."[Footnote 29] We
identified 151 studies that met the following criteria:
* original analysis of data based on students in the United States or
original quantitative synthesis of such previously conducted research
(also referred to as meta-analysis[Footnote 30]) and:
* published or prepared during or after 1984.
We screened the studies to identify those that were relevant for our
study and identified 62 of the 151 studies that met the following
criteria:
* assessed a student's school change as distinct from a student's
residential change;
* used quantitative measurement of the association between school
change and at least one student outcome, either academic or
nonacademic; and:
* peer-reviewed journal article, association or agency paper, state or
local education agency paper, or a conference paper from the last 2
years (2007 onward).
Each of these 62 studies was reviewed by a social scientist to
determine whether the study (1) contained sufficient information on
methods to make a determination about the study's soundness and
limitations and (2) for studies on academic outcomes only--controlled
for students' academic performance prior to changing schools. For the
purpose of controlling, we considered a variety of methods to be
sufficient, such as:
* using a statistical model that included prior academic performance
as a predictor or covariate,
* matching students on prior performance, or:
* analyzing difference scores (i.e., difference between premobility
academic performance and postmobility performance) rather than
absolute measures of achievement.
The result of this stage of the review was a set of studies that we
determined used sound methods and, in the case of studies of academic
outcomes, controlled for prior academic achievement. For each of these
studies, we also reviewed the other studies these authors used as
references, screened these studies using the same methods described
above, and identified one additional study that met our inclusion
criteria. Further, we excluded a few studies due to redundancy
(covering the same or nearly the same data and analysis as other
studies included in the review). At the end of the screening process,
26 studies on the effects of mobility on student outcomes remained, of
which 21 assessed academic outcomes and 11 assessed nonacademic
outcomes.[Footnote 31]
To review the findings, methods, and limitations of the selected
studies, we developed a data collection instrument to obtain
information systematically about each study's methods, findings, and
limitations on the reliability, scope, and generalizability of these
findings. We based our data collection and assessments on generally
accepted social science standards. A senior social scientist with
training in survey methods and statistical analysis of survey data
reviewed each study using the data collection instrument. A second
senior social scientist reviewed each completed data collection
instrument and the relevant portions of the study in question to
verify the accuracy of the information recorded. Most of our selected
studies measured academic outcomes using standardized test scores or
school dropout or completion rates and nonacademic outcomes using
misbehavior and social capital (i.e., richness of students' social
networks).
We selected the studies for our review based on their methodological
soundness and not on the generalizability of the results. Although the
findings of the studies we identified are not representative of the
findings of all studies of student mobility, the studies consist of
those published studies we could identify that used the strongest
designs to assess the effects of mobility. The selected studies varied
in methods and in scope. For example, some studies distinguished among
types of mobility (e.g., intra-city versus city-to-suburbs, or school-
change-only versus school-change-plus-residential-move), but others
did not. Some studies used nationally representative samples of
students, while others focused on specific populations, such as low-
income students in one city. Some studies assessed effects of mobility
at the student level, while others assessed effects at higher levels,
such as classrooms. See appendix IV for a list of the studies we
reviewed.
School Site Visits:
We conducted site visits to a nonprobability sample of eight schools
across six school districts in three states (California, Michigan, and
Texas) where we interviewed school officials and others about issues
related to student mobility. We selected states that provided
geographic coverage and that had high percentages of economically
disadvantaged students and/or high rates of foreclosures to provide
insight on how the economic downturn might be affecting students and
schools in high poverty areas. We selected schools with high
percentages of mobile students and that would illustrate school type
(public and charter), grade level (elementary, middle, and high
school), and location (urban, suburban, and rural).
During our school site visits, we interviewed state education agency
officials, local homeless education liaisons, principals, teachers,
guidance counselors, school social workers, community group
representatives, and parents of mobile students. During our
interviews, we collected information about:
* the number and demographic characteristics of mobile students;
* reasons for student mobility and timing of mobility;
* challenges related to student mobility, including meeting academic,
social, and emotional needs of mobile and nonmobile students; and:
* how schools address challenges of student mobility, including use of
federal programs and community resources.
In preparation for our site visits, we reviewed relevant laws,
regulations, and agency documents, and interviewed federal officials
and representatives of education and homeless associations about
issues related to student mobility and federal programs that serve low-
income, disadvantaged, and special needs students, including those who
change schools.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through November
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Data on Characteristics of Mobile Student Populations:
This appendix provides information from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K)--which
followed a cohort of students from 1998 to 2007--on the number of
schools students attended, by various student and parent
characteristics. In each table, we provide a comparison of the percent
of students who changed schools two times or less to students who
changed schools three or more times, and students who changed schools
four or more times.
Table 2: Number of Times Students Changed Schools by Eighth Grade:
Number of school changes: 0;
Percentage of students who changed schools: 5%.
Number of school changes: 1;
Percentage of students who changed schools: 31%.
Number of school changes: 2;
Percentage of students who changed schools: 34%.
Number of school changes: 3;
Percentage of students who changed schools: 18%.
Number of school changes: 4 or more;
Percentage of students who changed schools: 13%.
Source: ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Note: Data derived from interviews of parents who were asked in each
survey round a version of the question: "Since spring 2004 how many
times has your child changed from one school to another?"
[End of table]
Table 3: Percent of Students from Families with Incomes Below the
Poverty Level:
Comparison between 2 or less versus 3 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students from families with incomes below the poverty
level: 17%.
Number of school changes: 3 or more;
Percent of students from families with incomes below the poverty
level: 22%[A].
Comparison between 2 or less versus 4 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students from families with incomes below the poverty
level: 17%.
Number of school changes: 4 or more;
Percent of students from families with incomes below the poverty
level: 26%[A].
Source: ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Note: Data derived by combining data on household income and the
number of people living in the household with estimates of the poverty
threshold published by the Census Bureau.
[A] Indicates differences between the comparisons were statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 4: Percent of Students from Families Receiving TANF:
Comparison between 2 or less versus 3 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students from families receiving TANF: 3%.
Number of school changes: 3 or more;
Percent of students from families receiving TANF: 6%[A].
Comparison between 2 or less versus 4 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students from families receiving TANF: 3%.
Number of school changes: 4 or more;
Percent of students from families receiving TANF: 9%[A].
Source: ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Note: Data derived from interviews of parents who were asked: "In the
past 12 months, have you or anyone in your household received
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families?"
[A] Indicates differences between the comparisons were statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 5: Percent of Students Receiving Free or Reduced-Price Lunch:
Comparison between 2 or less versus 3 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch: 40%.
Number of school changes: 3 or more;
Percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch: 49%[A].
Comparison between 2 or less versus 4 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch: 40%.
Number of school changes: 4 or more;
Percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch: 54%[A].
Source: ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Note: Data derived from interviews of parents who were asked: "Does
your child receive free or reduced-price lunches at school?"
[A] Indicates differences between the comparisons were statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 6: Percent of Students From Families Receiving Food Stamps:
Comparison between 2 or less versus 3 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students whose families receive food stamps: 11%.
Number of school changes: 3 or more;
Percent of students whose families receive food stamps: 18%[A].
Comparison between 2 or less versus 4 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students whose families receive food stamps: 11%.
Number of school changes: 4 or more;
Percent of students whose families receive food stamps: 25%[A].
Source: ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Note: Data derived from interviews of parents who were asked: "In the
past 12 months, have you or anyone in your household received food
stamps?
[A] Indicates differences between the comparisons were statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 7: Percent of Students With No Father in the Household:
Comparison between 2 or less versus 3 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students with no father in the household: 21%.
Number of school changes: 3 or more;
Percent of students with no father in the household: 28%[A].
Comparison between 2 or less versus 4 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students with no father in the household: 21%.
Number of school changes: 4 or more;
Percent of students with no father in the household: 31%[A].
Source: ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Note: Father's presence was determined by ECLS-K surveyor during
interviews of parents.
[A] Indicates differences between the comparisons were statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 8: Percent of Students of Various Races:
Comparison between 2 or less versus 3 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students classified as Black or African-American, Non-
Hispanic students: 15%;
Percent of students classified as Hispanic: 18%;
Percent of students classified as White: 60%;
Percent of students classified as other: 7%.
Number of school changes: 3 or more;
Percent of students classified as Black or African-American, Non-
Hispanic students: 21%[A];
Percent of students classified as Hispanic: 18%;
Percent of students classified as White: 53%[A];
Percent of students classified as other: 8%.
Comparison between 2 or less versus 4 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students classified as Black or African-American, Non-
Hispanic students: 15%;
Percent of students classified as Hispanic: 18%;
Percent of students classified as White: 60%;
Percent of students classified as other: 7%.
Number of school changes: 4 or more;
Percent of students classified as Black or African-American, Non-
Hispanic students: 23%[B];
Percent of students classified as Hispanic: 18%;
Percent of students classified as White: 51%[B];
Percent of students classified as other: 8%.
Source: ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Note: Data derived from interviews of parents who were given various
racial or ethnic categories to indicate their child's race.
[A] Indicates differences between the comparisons were statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[B] Indicates differences between the comparisons were statistically
significant at the 90 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 9: Percent of Students from Families Who Do Not Own Their Home:
Comparison between 2 or less versus 3 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students from families that do not own their home: 20%.
Number of school changes: 3 or more;
Percent of students from families that do not own their home: 32%[A].
Comparison between 2 or less versus 4 or more school changes:
Number of school changes: 2 or less;
Percent of students from families that do not own their home: 20%.
Number of school changes: 4 or more;
Percent of students from families that do not own their home: 39%[A].
Source: ECLS-K data, 1998-2007.
Note: Data derived from interviews of parents who were asked: "Do you
[or anyone else in your family living there] own the home or
apartment, pay rent, or do something else?"
[A] Indicates differences between the comparisons were statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Data on Characteristics of Schools Regarding Mobile
Student Populations:
This appendix includes data from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), which is also known as the Nation's
Report Card. The NAEP is a continuing assessment of student progress
conducted nationwide periodically in reading, math, science, writing,
U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts. The NAEP assessment
collects data from students and school officials for a nationally
representative sample of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders. In the following
tables, we present data on the characteristics of students in grades
four and eight from the 2007 NAEP assessment for schools with "low"
and "high" mobility rates. Schools with low mobility rates had fewer
than 10 percent of their students who were no longer enrolled at the
end of the year while schools with high mobility rates had more than
10 percent of their students who were no longer enrolled at the end of
the school year. The tables are based on a selection of variables
relevant to our review.
Table 10: Mobility by Geographic Region of Schools:
Region: Northeast;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 9,870.7;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 20.08%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 885.7;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 7.68%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,542.9;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 20.66%;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 365.7;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 8.90%.
Region: Midwest;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 14,163.9;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 28.81%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 2,281.2;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 19.78%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 9,143.1;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 28.87%[A];
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 1,014.7;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 24.69%[A].
Region: South;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 15,597.9;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 31.72%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 4,273.8;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 37.05%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 10,135.1;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 32.00%[A];
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 1,345.7;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 32.75%[A].
Region: West;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 9,534.7;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 19.39%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 4,094.6;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 35.50%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 5,851.1;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 18.47%;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 1,383.2;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 33.66%.
Region: Total;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 49,167.2;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 11,535.2;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 31,672.3;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 4,109.3;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[A] Indicates differences between schools with low mobility and
schools with high mobility were not statistically significant at the
95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 11: Mobility by Metro-Centric Type of Locale:
Metro-centric type of locale: Large city;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 7,182.3;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 14.61%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 2,238.0;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 19.40%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 4,269.3;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 13.48%;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 771.8;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 18.78%.
Metro-centric type of locale: Midsize city;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,156.0;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 12.52%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 2,608.9;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 22.6%2;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,867.6;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 12.21%;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 696.8;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 16.96%.
Metro-centric type of locale: Urban fringe of large city;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 12,305.4;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 25.03%[A];
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 2,666.4;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 23.12%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,898.1;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 21.78%[A];
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 862.6;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 20.99%[A].
Metro-centric type of locale: Urban fringe or midsize;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 5,631.2;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 11.45%[A];
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 1,159.3;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 10.05%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,417.9;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 10.79%[A];
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 453.1;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 11.03%[A].
Metro-centric type of locale: Large town;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 609.3;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 1.24%[A];
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 162.0;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 1.40%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 241.7;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 0.76%[A];
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 45.9;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 1.12%[A].
Metro-centric type of locale: Small town;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,302.2;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 6.72%[A];
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 897.1;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 7.78%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 2,433.0;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 7.68%[A];
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 348.1;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 8.47%[A].
Metro-centric type of locale: Rural;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 7,804.3;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 15.87%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 896.8;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 7.77%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,126.9;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 19.34%;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 433.2;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 10.54%.
Metro-centric type of locale: Rural, inside Core Based Statistical
Area;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,176.4;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 12.56%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 906.7;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 7.86%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 4,417.6;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 13.95%[A];
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 497.8;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 12.11%[A].
Metro-centric type of locale: Total;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 49,167.2;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 11,535.2;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 31,672.3;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 4,109.3;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[A] Indicates differences between schools with low mobility and
schools with high mobility were not statistically significant at the
95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 12: Mobility by Receipt of Title I Funding:
Received Title I funding: No;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 20,207.9;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 41.28%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
2,020.5;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 17.53%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 16,727.8;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 53.63%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,555.2;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 37.99%.
Received Title I funding: Yes, for students;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 15,635.6;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 31.94%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,993.8;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 17.30%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 7,809.3;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 25.04%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
691.4;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 16.89%.
Received Title I funding: Yes, for school purpose;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 13,105.9;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 26.77%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
7,509.8;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 65.17%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,651.8;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 21.33%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,847.3;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 45.12%.
Received Title I funding: Total;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 48,949.4;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
11,524.1;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 31,188.9;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
4,094.0;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[End of table]
Table 13: Mobility by Percent of Students Receiving Targeted Title I
Services:
Percent of students receiving targeted Title I services: None;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 22,790.2;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 48.72%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
4,224.6;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 38.79%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 18,198.4;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 60.71%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,905.4;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 50.03%.
Percent of students receiving targeted Title I services: 1-5%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,818.8;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 8.16%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
206.6;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 1.90%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 2,836.0;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 9.46%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
45.6;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 1.20%.
Percent of students receiving targeted Title I services: 6-10%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 4,525.1;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 9.67%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
498.9;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 4.58%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 2,163.4;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 7.22%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
135.5;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 3.56%.
Percent of students receiving targeted Title I services: 11-25%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,512.3;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 13.92%[A];
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,241.7;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 11.40%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 2,284.8;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 7.62%[A];
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
246.5;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 6.47%[A].
Percent of students receiving targeted Title I services: 26-50%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,084.6;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 6.59%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,082.5;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 9.94%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 1,541.8;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 5.14%[A];
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
249.4;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 6.55%[A].
Percent of students receiving targeted Title I services: 51-75%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 796.5;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 1.70%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
677.3;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 6.22%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 533.2;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 1.78%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
287.6;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 7.55%.
Percent of students receiving targeted Title I services: 76-90%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 810.8;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 1.73%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
476.2;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 4.37%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 335.9;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 1.12%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
173.8;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 4.56%.
Percent of students receiving targeted Title I services: More than 90%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 4,444.4;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 9.50%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
2,482.9;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 22.80%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 2,083.1;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 6.95%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
764.3;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 20.07%.
Percent of students receiving targeted Title I services: Total sample;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 46,782.6;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
10,890.9;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 29,976.6;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
3,808.1;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[A] Indicates differences between schools with low mobility and
schools with high mobility were not statistically significant at the
95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 14: Mobility by Students Eligible for NSLP:
Percent of students eligible for NSLP: 0-10%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 8,237.3;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 21.54%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
158.0;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 1.44%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 4,748.1;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 21.48%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
47.4;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 1.25%.
Percent of students eligible for NSLP: 11-25%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,146.0;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 16.07%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
426.1;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 3.89%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,838.5;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 17.36%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
165.7;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 4.38%.
Percent of students eligible for NSLP: 26-34%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 4,066.9;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 10.64%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
576.5;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 5.26%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 2,152.7;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 9.74%[A];
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
278.2;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 7.34%[A].
Percent of students eligible for NSLP: 35-50%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,338.8;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 16.58%[A];
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,690.4;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 15.43%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,968.2;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 17.95%[A];
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
652.7;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 17.23%[A].
Percent of students eligible for NSLP: 51-75%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 7,060.1;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 18.47%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
3,850.6;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 35.15%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,872.1;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 17.52%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,100.0;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 29.04%.
Percent of students eligible for NSLP: 76-99%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 5,234.5;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 13.69%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
3,754.6;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 34.28%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 2,879.9;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 13.03%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,172.1;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 30.95%.
Percent of students eligible for NSLP: 100%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 1,150.9;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 3.01%[A];
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
497.1;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 4.54%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 647.9;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 2.93%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
371.5;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 9.81%.
Percent of students eligible for NSLP: Total;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 38,234.5;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
10,953.4;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 22,107.3;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
3,787.6;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[A] Indicates differences between schools with low mobility and
schools with high mobility were not statistically significant at the
95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 15: Mobility by How Schools Administer the NSLP:
Determine eligibility for NSLP: By individual student;
Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 35,708.7;
Schools with low mobility: Percent: 96.03%;
Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 10,031.4;
Schools with high mobility: Percent: 91.59%;
Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 2,0312;
Schools with low mobility: Percent: 95.15%;
Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 3,373.7;
Schools with high mobility: Percent: 89.95%.
Determine eligibility for NSLP: By special provisions;
Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 1,478.2;
Schools with low mobility: Percent: 3.97%;
Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 920.7;
Schools with high mobility: Percent: 8.41%;
Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 1,034.3;
Schools with low mobility: Percent: 4.85%;
Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 377.0;
Schools with high mobility: Percent: 10.05%.
Determine eligibility for NSLP: Total;
Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 37,186.8;
Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 10,952.1;
Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 21,346.3;
Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
Schools with high mobility: Number of schools: 3,750.7;
Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
Table 16: Mobility by School Participation in the NSLP:
[End of table]
School in NSLP: Yes;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 37,092.8;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 75.87%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
10,889.0;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 94.89%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 21,276.4;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 67.66%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
3741.8;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 91.42%.
School in NSLP: No;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 11,794.5;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 24.13%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
586.4;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 5.11%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 10,170.6;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 32.34%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
351.2;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 8.58%.
School in NSLP: Total;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 48,887.3;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
11,475.4;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 31,447.0;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
4,093.0;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[End of table]
Table 17: Mobility by Special Education Students:
Percent of special education students: 0-5%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 18,426.2;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 38.98%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,690.2;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 15.10%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 13,092.9;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 43.39%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
393.8;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 9.78%.
Percent of special education students: 6-10%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 13,220.3;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 27.97%[A];
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
3,504.8;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 31.30%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 6,137.6;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 20.34%[A];
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
965.7;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 23.98%[A].
Percent of special education students: 11-25%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 14,016.2;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 29.65%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
5,449.5;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 48.67%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 9,518.4;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 31.54%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
2,003.0;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 49.73%.
Percent of special education students: 26-50%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 1,230.7;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 2.60%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
493.0;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 4.40%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 1,015.8;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 3.37%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
320.6;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 7.96%.
Percent of special education students: 51-100%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 375.4;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 0.79%[A];
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
58.6;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 0.52%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 411.2;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 1.36%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
344.3;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 8.55%.
Percent of special education students: Total;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 47,268.7;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
11,196.1;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 30,175.8;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
4,027.5;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[A] Indicates differences between schools with low mobility and
schools with high mobility were not statistically significant at the
95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 18: Mobility by Students Who are Limited English Proficient:
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 0%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 21,648.8;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 44.65%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,954.3;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 17.07%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 16,574.7;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 53.32%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,288.8;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 32.02%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 1-5%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 16,098.5;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 33.20%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
2,919.3;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 25.50%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 10,193.6;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 32.79%[A];
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,159.6;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 28.81%[A].
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 6-10%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,325.9;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 6.86%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,164.9;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 10.17%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 1,672.3;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 5.38%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
419.9;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 10.43%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 11-25%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,732.5;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 7.70%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
2,282.0;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 19.93%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 1,571.3;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 5.05%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
577.8;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 14.35%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 26-50%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 2,074.6;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 4.28%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,904.8;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 16.64%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 717.9;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 2.31%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
449.7;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 11.17%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 51-75%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 808.6;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 1.67%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
848.8;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 7.41%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 239.7;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 0.77%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
106.9;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 2.66%.
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: 76-100%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 794.3;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 1.64%[A];
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
375.2;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 3.28%[A];
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 116.3;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 0.37%[A];
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
22.9;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 0.57%[A].
Percent of students with limited English proficiency: Total;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 48,483.1;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
11,449.3;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 31,085.7;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
4,025.7;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[A] Indicates differences between schools with low mobility and
schools with high mobility were not statistically significant at the
95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 19: Mobility by Percent of Students Absent on an Average Day:
Percent absent: 0-2%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 20,059.5;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 41.34%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
2,029.0;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 17.65%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 13,398.7;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 42.94%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
721.0;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 17.68%.
Percent absent: 3-5%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 25,153.9;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 51.84%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
6,817.6;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 59.32%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 14,292.5;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 45.80%[A];
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,805.1;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 44.25%[A].
Percent absent: 6-10%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,043.1;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 6.27%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
2,461.4;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 21.42%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 3,323.2;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 10.65%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
1,210.5;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 29.67%.
Percent absent: More than 10%;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 266.2;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 0.55%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
185.8;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 1.62%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 191.3;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 0.61%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
342.6;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 8.40%.
Percent absent: Total;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 48,522.7;
4th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
4th grade: 4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
11,493.8;
4th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Number of schools: 31,205.7;
8th grade: Schools with low mobility: Percent: 100%;
8th grade: 8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Number of schools:
4,079.2;
8th grade: Schools with high mobility: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data, 2007.
[A] Indicates differences between schools with low mobility and
schools with high mobility were not statistically significant at the
95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Literature Review of Published Research on Student
Mobility:
This appendix includes studies of possible academic and nonacademic
outcomes of student mobility that met our criteria for inclusion in
our review.
Study title: Children in Motion: School Transfers and Elementary
School Performance;
Author and source: Alexander, Karl L., Doris R. Entwisle, and Susan L.
Dauber. The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 90, no. 1
(September/October 1996): 3-12;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 1-5;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Baltimore); urban,
poor (data were intended to be representative of all Baltimore
schoolchildren, but attrition over the 5 years of the study resulted
in bias towards a African-American, low-socio-economic status (SES)
population);
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: The Impact of Charter School Attendance on Student
Performance;
Author and source: Booker, Kevin et al. Journal of Public Economics,
vol. 91 (2007): 849-876;
Grade levels or ages: Grade 4;
Geographic or demographic scope: State (Texas);
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: School Mobility in the Early Elementary Grades: Frequency
and Impact From Nationally-Representative Data;
Author and source: Burkam, David T., Valerie E. Lee, and Julie Dwyer.
Prepared for the Workshop on the Impact of Mobility and Change on the
Lives of Young Children, Schools, and Neighborhoods (June 29-30, 2009);
Grade levels or ages: Kindergarten through grade 3;
Geographic or demographic scope: National;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: Disruption Versus Tiebout Improvement: The Costs and
Benefits of Switching Schools;
Author and source: Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain, and Steven G.
Rivkin. Journal of Public Economics, vol. 88 (2004): 1721-1746;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 4-7;
Geographic or demographic scope: State (Texas);
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: School Mobility and Student Achievement in an Urban
Setting;
Author and source: Heinlein, Lisa Melman, and Marybeth Shinn.
Psychology in the Schools, vol. 37, no. 4 (2000): 349-357;
Grade levels or ages: Kindergarten through grade 6;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (New York City
community); urban, largely minority and low-income population;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: Head Start Children: School Mobility and Achievement in
the Early Grades;
Author and source: Mantzicopoulos, Panayota, and Dana J. Knutson. The
Journal of Educational Research, vol. 93, no. 5 (May/June 2000): 305-
311;
Grade levels or ages: Kindergarten through grade 2;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Midwestern community);
suburban, economically disadvantaged, prior Head Start attendees;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: Student Mobility, Academic Performance, and School
Accountability;
Author and source: Mao, Michael X., Maria D. Whitsett, and Lynn T.
Mellor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago (Mar. 24-28, 1997);
Grade levels or ages: Grades 1-8;
Geographic or demographic scope: State (Texas);
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: Predictors of Educational Attainment in the Chicago
Longitudinal Study;
Author and source: Ou, Suh-Ruu, and Arthur J. Reynolds. School
Psychology Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2 (2008): 199-229;
Grade levels or ages: Preschool through age 20;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Chicago); urban, low-
SES population of mostly African-American children;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: Special Education and School Achievement: An Exploratory
Analysis with a Central-City Sample;
Author and source: Reynolds, Arthur J., and Barbara Wolfe. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol 21, no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 249-269;
Grade levels or ages: Kindergarten through grade 6;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Chicago); urban, low-
SES population of mostly African-American children;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School
Dropout;
Author and source: Rumberger, Russell W., and Katherine A. Larson.
American Journal of Education, vol. 107, no. 1 (November 1998): 1-35;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 8-12;
Geographic or demographic scope: National;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: The Hazards of Changing Schools for California Latino
Adolescents;
Author and source: Rumberger, Russell W., Katherine A. Larson, Gregory
J. Palardy et al. University of California, Berkeley: Chicano/Latino
Policy Project (CLPP) Policy Report, vol. 1, no. 2, (October 1998);
Grade levels or ages: Grades 8-12;
Geographic or demographic scope: State (California);
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: The Educational Consequences of Mobility for California
Students and Schools;
Author and source: Rumberger, Russell W., Katherine A. Larson, Robert
K. Ream et al. University of California, Berkeley and Stanford
University: Policy Analysis for California Education Research Series
99-2, (March 1999);
Grade levels or ages: Grades 8-12;
Geographic or demographic scope: State (California);
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: School Mobility and Achievement: Longitudinal Findings
From an Urban Cohort;
Author and source: Temple, Judy A., and Arthur J. Reynolds. Journal of
School Psychology, vol. 37, no. 4 (1999): 355-377;
Grade levels or ages: Kindergarten through grade 7;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Chicago); urban, low-
SES population of mostly African-American children;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: Student Transience in North Carolina: The Effect of
School Mobility on Student Outcomes Using Longitudinal Data;
Author and source: Xu, Zeyu, Jane Hannaway, and Stephanie D'Souza.
National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education
Research (CALDER) Working Paper no. 22, March 2009;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 3-8;
Geographic or demographic scope: State (North Carolina);
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic.
Study title: The Relation of School Structure and Social Environment
to Parental Involvement in Elementary Schools;
Author and source: Griffith, James. The Elementary School Journal,
vol. 99, no. 1 (September 1998): 53-80;
Grade levels or ages: Students in elementary school and parents;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city; large metropolitan
area;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Nonacademic.
Study title: Early Intervention and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention:
Evidence from the Chicago Longitudinal Study;
Author and source: Mann, Emily A., and Arthur J. Reynolds. Social Work
Research, vol. 30, no. 3 (September 2006): 153-167;
Grade levels or ages: Kindergarten through grade 12;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Chicago); urban, low-
SES population of mostly African-American children;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Nonacademic.
Study title: Paths of Effects of Early Childhood Intervention on
Educational Attainment and Delinquency: A Confirmatory Analysis of the
Chicago Child-Parent Centers;
Author and source: Reynolds, Arthur J., Suh-Ruu Ou, and James W.
Topitzes. Child Development, vol. 75, no. 5 (September/October 2004):
1299-1328;
Grade levels or ages: Kindergarten through age 17;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Chicago); urban, low-
SES population of mostly African-American children;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Nonacademic.
Study title: School-Based Early Intervention and Later Child
Maltreatment in the Chicago Longitudinal Study;
Author and source: Reynolds, Arthur J., and Dylan L. Robertson. Child
Development, vol. 74, no. 1 (January/February 2003): 3-26;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 3-7;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Chicago); urban, low-
income minority students who participated in school-based early
intervention;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Nonacademic.
Study title: Friendship Networks of Mobile Adolescents;
Author and source: South, Scott J., and Dana L. Haynie. Social Forces,
vol 83, no. 1 (September 2004): 315-350;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 7-12 and parents;
Geographic or demographic scope: National;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Nonacademic.
Study title: Longitudinal Effects of Student Mobility on Three
Dimensions of Elementary School Engagement;
Author and source: Gruman, Diana H. et al. Child Development, vol. 79,
no. 6 (November/December 2008): 1833-1852;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 2-5;
Geographic or demographic scope: Schools (10 suburban schools in the
Pacific Northwest that had high-risk population of low income, single-
family households, high mobility, and poor academic performance);
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic and nonacademic.
Study title: Why Are Residential and School Moves Associated with Poor
School Performance?;
Author and source: Pribesh, Shana, and Douglas B. Downey. Demography,
vol. 36, no. 4 (November 1999): 521-534;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 8-12;
Geographic or demographic scope: National;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic and nonacademic.
Study title: Toward Understanding How Social Capital Mediates the
Impact of Mobility on Mexican American Achievement;
Author and source: Ream, Robert K. Social Forces, vol. 84, no. 1
(September 2005): 201-230;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 8-12;
Geographic or demographic scope: National;
Mexican American students and non-Latino White students;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic and nonacademic.
Study title: Early Schooling of Children at Risk;
Author and source: Reynolds, Arthur J. American Educational Research
Journal, vol. 28, no. 2 (Summer 1991): 392-422;
Grade levels or ages: Kindergarten through grade 2;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Chicago); urban, low-
SES population of mostly African-American children;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic and nonacademic.
Study title: School Adjustment of Children at Risk Through Fourth
Grade;
Author and source: Reynolds, Arthur J., and Nikolaus Bezruczko.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4 (October 1993): 457-480;
Grade levels or ages: Kindergarten through grade 4;
Geographic or demographic scope: District/city (Chicago); urban, low-
SES population of mostly African-American children;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic and nonacademic.
Study title: Students on the Move: Residential and Educational
Mobility in America's Schools;
Author and source: Swanson, Christopher B., and Barbara Schneider.
Sociology of Education, vol. 72, no. 1 (January 1999): 54-67;
Grade levels or ages: Grades 8-12;
Geographic or demographic scope: National;
Type of student outcomes[A]: Academic and nonacademic.
Source: GAO review of existing research.
Note: In addition to the primary research studies included in this
table, we reviewed one meta-analysis of studies of academic outcomes
of student mobility: Reynolds, A. J., Chen, C.-C., & Herbers, J. E.
(June 2009). School Mobility and Educational Success: A Research
Synthesis and Evidence on Prevention. Paper presented at the Workshop
on the Impact of Mobility and Change on the Lives of Young Children,
Schools, and Neighborhoods, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
[A] This column indicates the types of outcomes (academic,
nonacademic, or both) for which studies were included in our report.
Studies may have included additional outcomes that were not included
in our review. For example, a study reviewed for a nonacademic outcome
may also have included an academic outcome, but if the study did not
control for prior academic achievement, then we would have reviewed
the study for its nonacademic outcome only.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant Director),
Linda Siegel (Analyst-in-Charge), Vida Awumey, Robert Grace, Erin
O'Brien, and Stacy Spence made significant contributions to this
report. Jack Wang, Ruben Montes de Oca, Luann Moy, and John Karikari
assisted with data analysis and methodology. Russell Burnett, Lorraine
Ettaro, and Jay Smale assisted with the review of external studies.
James Rebbe provided legal support. Mimi Nguyen and Jeremy Sebest
assisted with graphics. Susannah Compton assisted in report
development.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] We analyzed Education's Early Childhood Longitudinal Study:
Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 data from 1998-2007 and National
Assessment of Educational Progress data from 2007.
[2] The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act requires every local
educational agency to designate a liaison who serves as a primary
contact between homeless families and schools to help ensure homeless
students enroll in school. 42 U.S.C. § 11431(g)(6).
[3] GAO, Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently,
Harming Their Education, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-45] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4,
1994).
[4] Title I, Part A of ESEA provides federal funds to elementary and
secondary schools to improve the educational opportunities of
economically disadvantaged children.
[5] Results based on Education's Early Childhood Longitudinal Study:
Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 data from 1998-2007.
[6] The ECLS-K dataset did not allow us to identify homelessness as a
student characteristic. The poverty threshold for a family of four in
2009 was $21,954.
[7] Under NSLP, the Department of Agriculture reimburses schools for
providing nutritious free or reduced-price lunches to low-income
students. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is the new
name for the federal food stamp program. TANF is a federally funded
block grant--administered by the Department of Health and Human
Services--that is designed to help needy families achieve self-
sufficiency.
[8] This difference is statistically significant at the 90 percent
confidence level. There were no statistically significant differences
for the other racial groups.
[9] According to a GAO report issued in June 2010, "Programs'
definitions of homelessness range from including primarily people in
homeless shelters or on the street to also including those living with
others because of economic hardship." See GAO, Homelessness: A Common
Vocabulary Could Help Agencies Collaborate and Collect More Consistent
Data, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-702] (Washington,
D.C.: June 30, 2010).
[10] These results are from the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), which collects data on 4th, 8th, and 12th graders. In
this section, we present data on eighth graders to be consistent with
the eighth grade results we report using the ECLS-K data. In appendix
III, we also present information on fourth and eighth graders from the
NAEP.
[11] Many of the studies that met the criteria for inclusion in our
review controlled for a variety of factors that can affect a student's
academic achievement, such as socio-economic status, parental
education, urban or rural school location, and parental marital
status. All of the studies we reviewed on academic achievement
controlled for students' level of achievement prior to changing
schools to account for any pre-existing differences between more
mobile and less mobile students. While homelessness may be one of many
reasons why students change schools, none of the studies we reviewed
included homelessness as a potential factor that could affect student
achievement.
[12] Each study we reviewed used its own method to define what
constituted "more" or "less" mobile.
[13] A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis of a collection of
studies for the purpose of integrating the results.
[14] Many studies focused exclusively on low income, minority students
in an urban area and did not compare students of different income
levels.
[15] The long-term gain in academic achievement when changing to
schools across districts was true for all demographic groups except
African Americans. The study authors propose that long-term gains in
achievement are due to switching into schools of higher quality, and
they suggest that African Americans who switch into nonurban schools
do not generally experience as large an increase in school quality as
do white and Hispanic students who switch into non-urban schools. The
authors did not explore the factors underlying why African Americans
did not experience similar gains.
[16] Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, once a
child is determined to be eligible for special education services, an
Individualized Education Program is prepared for that child which
includes, among other things, an assessment of the child's current
educational performance, a statement of measurable performance goals,
and a description of the special services that will be provided to the
child. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d).
[17] 20 U.S.C. § 6301.
[18] Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009).
[19] 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
[20] 42 U.S.C. § 1751 et seq. (school lunch programs) and 42 U.S.C. §
1771 (child nutrition programs).
[21] 42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.
[22] 42 U.S.C. § 11432(e)(3)(E)(i)(III).
[23] 20 U.S.C. § 6391-6399. None of the schools we visited received
funding from the Migrant Education Program.
[24] According to Education officials, the Records Exchange Advice,
Communication, and Technical Support provides technical assistance on
record exchange to state and local officials. Also, Education awards
Consortium Incentive Grants to states for activities to improve
intrastate and interstate coordination of migrant education programs.
[25] NAEP also collects information on school environment and
students' academic achievement. The grades surveyed by NAEP were
chosen because they represent critical junctures in academic
achievement.
[26] This question asked the respondent to exclude students who
transferred into the school during the school year.
[27] Title I, Part A of ESEA is the federal government's largest
program for disadvantaged students, including students from low-income
families.
[28] The National School Lunch Program is a federal program that
provides free and reduced-price lunch to students from low-income
families.
[29] We searched the following electronic databases: Education
Resources Information Center, ProQuest, ECO/EconLit/SocAbs, PsycINFO,
Social SciSearch, Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts, MEDLINE, and
Academic OneFile.
[30] A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis of a collection of
studies for the purpose of integrating the results.
[31] Six studies assessed both academic and nonacademic outcomes.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: